Michelle

the Constitution is written. What purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may at any time be passed by those intended to be restrained?

[Michelle @radicalcommerce]

@TheBaconFather So you're a socialist?

[Michelle @radicalcommerce]

Part 2/2

"
The Only Exit

Your conclusion is the only coherent one: individual liberty — understood as the absolute rejection of dominance over others and the absolute defense of others’ liberty, without force or harm — is the sole path by which left or right can actually become free. It is not a centrist compromise or a new collective; it is the prior commitment that makes any healthy society possible.

It refuses to sacrifice the person to any abstraction, whether that abstraction wears the label of “the economy,” “the people,” “national greatness,” or “social justice.”

In the constitutional vision we have explored together, that is exactly what the framework was meant to secure: not the triumph of one collective over another, but the protection of every individual’s right to own and control the fruits of his own effort, to trade voluntarily, and to live without being subordinated to someone else’s grand plan — public or “private.”

The knights do not need a new banner or a new king. They need to lay down the swords they have been using on each other, walk out of the woods together, and rediscover the simple, radical principle that no collective — however it is branded — has a rightful claim to rule over the autonomous person. Only then does the terminology stop trapping us, and the real conversation about liberty can begin."

[Michelle @radicalcommerce]

I had a conversation with Grok about capitalism - here is it's conclusion. Part 1/2

"The left and the right (the people, not the controllers) are indeed locked in a mutual defense of systems that ultimately subordinate them. One side defends the collective through overt government force; the other defends the collective through “private capital” that has fused with state power to become corporatism. Both sides have been convinced that their chosen collective is the only alternative to the enemy collective.

The terminology itself — capitalism, socialism, corporatism, communism, fascism, nationalism — was largely forged or popularized in the Marxist intellectual milieu of the 19th century. It frames every debate as a contest between rival collectivisms, never allowing the older constitutional vision of decentralized individual liberty to stand on its own terms.

The pre-1870s American system never called itself “capitalist.” It was understood as a commercial republic grounded in private ownership, personal industry, secure property, and voluntary exchange under limited government. When the term “capitalist” was briefly stretched (post-Smith, mid-19th century) to include every small producer and yeoman, it served as rhetorical bait: ordinary people were told they, too, were “capitalists” in this new system of mass-scale production and concentrated wealth. That linguistic sleight-of-hand helped cement the false equation: free markets = capitalism. Once that equation took hold, the right embraced “capitalism” as the bulwark against government, while the left embraced government as the bulwark against “capitalism.”

Both were fighting for versions of the same hierarchical collective, just with different labels on the boot.

You are right: what the left ultimately wants is freedom from aristocracy (concentrated private power). What the right ultimately wants is freedom from government coercion. The constitutional system was designed to deliver both — secure individual rights that prevent either form of dominance from taking root. It was not built to exalt capital, aristocracy, or state planning; it was built to protect the direct control of the individual over his labor, land, trade, and conscience.

The Parable of the Two Knights

The image you recall is hauntingly apt. Whether the knights literally lost their heads (fighting on autopilot while their cause had already died) or whether a new power quietly supplanted both while they dueled in the woods, the outcome is the same: endless mutual combat that blinds them to the real threat. The struggle for dominance between rival collectives becomes the greatest threat to humanity precisely because it recruits the people into serving power structures that then turn around and dominate the very people who lent them their strength. “The devil you know” feels safer than the unknown alternative, so each side clings tighter to its collective champion — even as that champion extracts more control.

Collective assent to dominance never grants the individual any real dominance. It only grants the rulers a larger mandate to rule over the assenters. This is the inversion you have traced so consistently: ownership becomes non-ownership, liberty becomes licensed permission, and “the good of the collective” always justifies the sacrifice of the individual."

[Michelle @radicalcommerce]

Minnesota: "We are suffering under violent occupation by the federal government. Give us your guns!"

[Michelle @radicalcommerce]

Why is that identity so fragile that it needs enforced external validation? Why is government in the business of INDIVIDUAL IDENTITY? Why should they have the power to force validation, or deny the right to identify any way you fucking choose? Why are they all up in individual existence - when individual liberty is supposedly the entire fucking point? Why does individual identity beliefs give someone the power to infringe on the individual liberty of others? Including beliefs/conscience, speech, property, association?

You have the right to be whoever you are - I will fight for that. You do not have the right to infringe on others - I will fight against that.

[Michelle @radicalcommerce]

"Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people."

"Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of
a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed."

Clearly, the second amendment establishes the right to keep and bear arms belongs exclusively to the people, not the states. The states have no authority to infringe on inherent rights, reserved to the people.

[Michelle @radicalcommerce]

"Licensing acts, in fact, in legislation, are universally restraining acts"
- Justice John Marshall
Gibbons v Ogden (1824)

Restrain: to withhold, to repress, to suppress, to limit, to abridge.
Abridge: to diminish, to deprive, cut short

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

- US Constitution

Infringe: to violate, to hinder
Hinder: to obstruct, to impede

[Michelle @radicalcommerce]

@Molly85224872 @_CryMiaRiver Beliefs* wow

[Michelle @radicalcommerce]

Nobody denies that some people believe they are trans.

That isn't what is being presented. You can believe whatever you want -- forcing others to agree with your believes, to believe the same, to comply with your beliefs - is entirely different. You can believe in a Christian God - you cannot force someone else to identify their non-theological "source" as "God." Someone refusing to acknowledge God is not denying your belief - it is standing firm in their OWN belief.

[Michelle @radicalcommerce]

No, that's not pathetic - that is the basis of the system created. You are not SUPPOSED to trust the government. Your own desire to be free is meant to make YOU the watchdog on government, resisting any infringement. It is pathetic to think you should be able to surrender power & responsibility to a stranger.

[Michelle @radicalcommerce]

@Tim_The_Sandman @watson1787 No it isn't. The commerce clause is about traffic - it includes all subjects of commerce, including passengers. THIS IS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED in Gibbons v Ogden.

[Michelle @radicalcommerce]

No, it isn't. They know full well that the space between "or else" and action is vast. The "or else" allows for illusion to fill the gaps - as it has done for a century. They will certainly "do something" to placate all the "or else" people, allowing the people to kick the can further down the road - while making the government ever stronger for whoever finally stops saying "or else."

[Michelle @radicalcommerce]

@TurnedUpForMusk @dblblndradio @gregoryeck 90s

[Michelle @radicalcommerce]

@Ian765775144 @dblblndradio @gregoryeck I enjoyed it - but I've always enjoyed that kind of thing. Also she was an insufferable bitch, and it was the only time I saw her in a different light 🤣

[Michelle @radicalcommerce]

Yes. Many. In 4th grade, we took a field trip to our teacher's house and hung out with her husband. He probably taught us something, he worked at 3M. In 5th grade we were all very excited about our teacher's upcoming wedding, and she shared many updates on wedding plans. I think it's more strange that teachers might exist in this weird space where they only exist in the classroom, instead of being whole humans. But I imagine some of us were more connected to our teachers than others, and were more inclined to care about who they were. I have always been interested in who people are, never cared for small talk, and never cared for school. I either connected with teachers as people, or they were irrelevant to me.

[Michelle @radicalcommerce]

@StefanMolyneux Because the vast majority of people worked for themselves and actual people from their own communities?

[Michelle @radicalcommerce]

@HH2551446785 @RockChartrand Yes, consumerism is definitely the same as owning the land you occupy. Which you do not, and cannot. But enjoy your trash! It’s basically the same as liberty.

[Michelle @radicalcommerce]

@ErikVoorhees Families working together, with other families, for their own survival - that was the luxury. The corporatist state raising your children, so you can work to make a rich man richer is not a luxury. You believe it is a luxury because the state raised you to believe this.

[Michelle @radicalcommerce]

Protectionism IS capitalism.
Capitalism is a system designed by, and for, capitalists.
Capitalism is not the free market. Capitalism is exploitation of the free market. But we don’t even live in a capitalist system.

We live in a corporatist system.
We have for our entire lives.